On Apr 4, 2005, at 12:44 AM, Branko Čibej wrote:
> Scott Palmer wrote:
>
>> On Apr 3, 2005, at 6:34 PM, Robert Hunter wrote:
>>> It would be nice to have Subversion's interface exposed through COM;
>>> it would allow ASP code to interact with Subversion without relying
>>> on wrapping the commandline.
>>
>> If you need it, put a COM wrapper around the existing "normal" API.
>>
>> I don't see why the subversion development team should spend the time
>> to code a Microsoft specific API as well as the cross-platform one
>> they already have.
>
> Hah. I just spent a day and a night fiddling with the Win32 SVN
> (specificallt, the 1.1.4 release and a security enhancement for 1.2).
> Are you saying I ought to stop?
Err, I'm not sure what you are doing that has to do with COM. But I
only meant that getting the basic SVN APIs working should be the
priority, a COM API is an extra step that I wouldn't want to slow down
the development if it was a pain to maintain.
>> If someone else were to make bindings though, they could be
>> contributed to the subversion project. COM is sort of messy though,
>> so unless you need it, it is probably better to avoid it.
>
> We did have a set of COM wrappers a long time ago, but they bitrotted
> when the maintainer had to leave the project, and no one else was
> interested in maintaining them. These days, I suppose .NET would be a
> better target than COM.
I think .Net specific bindings would be useful to even less people than
straight COM. I believe the typical COM stuff is still well supported
in .Net, but not having done .Net and no desire to start, I don't know
for sure.
Scott
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Mon Apr 4 15:47:53 2005